Hamas no, human rights yes

[shira]

Why are the left and the anti-war movement ignoring Hamas's repression of the Palestinian people?

Hamas is intensifying its repression of the Palestinian citizens of Gaza, according to recent reports by Amnesty International and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. This repression includes beatings, kneecappings, executions, detention without trial, torture, restrictions on civic organisations and violent attacks on critics and protesters, as reported in the Guardian last Friday.

<snip>

These abuses, which are part of a long-standing pattern of human rights violations, reveal Hamas's totalitarian agenda and are a portent of the Iranian-style theocratic tyranny they would impose on the Palestinian people if they ever secured absolute power. It is an antisemitic, misogynistic, homophobic, anti-trade union, authoritarian, clericalist movement.

<snip>

This is the broad consensus among much of liberal and left opinion in western countries like the UK and US. I agree. But while progressive opinion is justifiably quick to condemn Israel, it is oddly silent when Palestinians are being persecuted by fellow Palestinians. Why the double standards?

<snip>

It is therefore disturbing that significant sections (not all) of the left are flirting with Hamas. During the January protests in the UK against Israel's barbaric bombardment of Gaza, there were frequent pro-Hamas chants and placards. "We are all Hamas now!" some marchers yelled. At one rally in Hyde Park, speakers on the main stage urged "Victory to Hamas!" and received tumultuous cheers of approval (with only a few boos).

<snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/18/hamas-palestine-israel-human-rights

[Chulanowa]

1. Because we all hate Jews, obviously

Isn't that the only answer you'll accept, Shira? :rofl: C'mon, give us the whole Jonah Goldberg "Democrats are nazis" thing!

'Course I don't see you asking why Israel supported Hamas in the first place, but then I don't expect critical thought out of you.

First, the left is not at all "silent" when it comes to this. This is a straw man that hinges on the reader doing no research, much as your claim - I'm sorry, the right wing's claim that Muslims don't speak out against terrorism. They do. Frequently. You - I mean, the right, sorry - just choose not to pay attention. Doing so would undermine your - DAMMIT - would undermine the right's argument justifying hatred, after all. Please return your straw men to their cornfield. Maybe a plucky Kansan girl will help them find a brain.

However, there is a note that I can agree with - those of us on the left can, on some levels, empathize with Hamas. The left loves the underdog, and hates imperialism. Well, the Israel-Palestine conflict is definitely an imperialistic war - both as a continuation of the imperialism at the start of the century and in its own right, what with the colonies - and Hamas definitely fits the "underdog" role. While most of us aren't about to say "Hamas are the good guys", we can look at the situation and say "Can't really blame them, even if I can't agree". This is empathy is made stronger when Israel pulls some crazy shit in Gaza and puts Hamas into a defensive fighting position, especially in light of all the shit that had led up to that point - Israel engaging in an Iraq-style embargo even while Hamas cuts the feet out from under those firing rockets from Gaza.

Victory to Hamas? When Hamas is fighting a defensive battle against an invading force, yes. When Hamas invades Israel, the same voices will be calling for victory to Israel.

As for why the focus on Israel's crimes over those of Hamas... Well, it's twofold. First off, Israel has vastly more of them to answer for. Second... Well, what state is Hamas head of? Anyone? Anyone? What treaties is it part of... Anyone? What's the size of it's combined air force, navy, and army? Any answers there? How much of its defense budget does it get from US gifts? What the hell is its defense budget? These rhetorical questions do have a point - Israel is the "civilized" nation, the western-style democracy that in large part relies on the goodwill of the world. Hamas is a bunch of thugs who managed to win an election where about five hundred thousand people bothered to vote.

Fuck me for thinking we should hold a democratic, officially secular state with the fourth most-powerful military on earth to a higher standard than we hold a bunch of Banana Republic motherfuckers ruling over a slum.

[Vegasaurus]

3. Those "Banana Republic ************ ruling over a slum"?

Some believe they are the ruling body of Gaza.

In fact, I do believe that you are one of those who supports the "democratically elected government of Gaza".

So, if you think they are responsible enough to win and election and govern, do you give them a pass for being a bunch of ***********?

Why the different standard?

[Chulanowa]

4. I think the same way about Republicans

Just because I acknowledge they can win elections doesn't mean I think they're not motherfuckers.

Got a problem with that, motherfucker? :)

[Vegasaurus]

42. Nice smily face ad hominem

try looking at the facts.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. If you bothered reading what people's opinions are, you'd find no different standard...

The person yr accusing of supporting Hamas only said a few threads ago that they don't support Hamas, which leads me to wonder if you actually bother reading what people say or whether you read and then ignore it...

[shira]

7. struck a nerve?

1. Love the rightwing comparison; do keep up as it's people like you - no, rightwingers like you, Pat Buchanon and David Duke - who have virtually the exact same viewpoints on all that is I/P. Nice RW bedfellows you have there.

2. People like you, Pat Buchanon, and David Duke are DEFINITELY silent WRT Palestinian suffering under Hamas - and defining Hamas as more a defensive resistance group than the "antisemitic, misogynistic, homophobic, anti-trade union, authoritarian, clericalist" Iranian-style repression movement (against Palestinians) that it really is. You, your uncle Pat, and cousin Duke minimize all that is Hamas in order to focus nearly 100% of your attention and hate on democratic Israel - never empathising with Israeli victims of terror. You guys couldn't give 2 craps about Palestinians either, who suffer under Hamas, or those suffering as refugees in other countries. You don't care for anything other than hating on Israel and showing no compassion for what Israelis go through - after all they cannot be the "victims" here, can they? What's certain is Palestinians aren't victims either, if they're victims of Hamas. Oh no, never.

3. If you think Zionism is an imperialist movement, you're completely batshit crazy and there's little hope for you. Which "empire" were Jews pre-1948 extending? Who were they "colonizing" for? Jews pre-1948 belonged nowhere as no one wanted them. Please amuse us with your very best and imaginative, revisionist history. Lay off the RW theories of Buchanon and David Duke if you can, please.

4. By not focusing on Hamas crimes - even against its own people - you and your far RW friends are practicing a racism based on low expectations. You have a hypocritical and racist, double-standard, not one clear single-standard for all. By letting Hamas off the hook, you're guaranteeing that Palestinian suffering is prolonged; its citizens damned to suffer under Sharia law and worse - not that you care. No one speaks up for them against their Islamist masters - including yourself - someone supposedly "pro-Palestinian". But then, we know Rw'ers like the ones whose views are closest to yours (Buchanon, Duke, etc.) don't care much for ANY non-whites, Jews and Arabs included.



ps
Loved the way you describe Hamas as being put in a defensive position during the most recent Gaza conflict. So it's defensive to not extend the ceasefire and then shoot off 300 rockets during Christmas week? Really now - when you get your comic material from inbred hillbillies like Pat Buchanon and David Duke, please don't expect real progressives to allow you to peddle that shit as if it's gospel truth.

[azurnoir]

13. LOL pot meet kettle

haven't you used Melamie Philips author of Subversives for Obama, Jonah Goldberg,, FreeRepublic, and Camera to promote your "ideals"?

[shira]

18. I've used CAMERA

not the others.

It's funny how your sources and views are indistinguishable from Pat Buchanon's and David Duke's, isn't it?

[Chulanowa]

22. Could we get a comparison of that please?

A comparison of our views, taken from our posts, and those of PB and DD.

Also please explain how my sources, such as y'know, Amnesty International, B'Tselem, the Jerusalem Post, and (gods help me) Wikipedia are indistinguishable from these two. Thanks ahead of time, Shira.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[azurnoir]

57. Shira was this just an excuse to post this stuff

but I cut and pasted excerpts from each

Worse, blood-drenched Jews are using America equipment to commit war crimes. “Israeli airstrikes an outlawed form of collective punishment, that has left with no sanitation, rotting food, impure water and days without light or electricity in the horrible heat of July.” (Days without light in July?)


1990: "There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in The Middle East – the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States."

- The McLaughlin Group, Aug 26, 1990

1990: "Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory."

Interviewer: Dr. Duke, what impact has the worsening situation of the occupying forces in Iraq and the daily shipment of body-bags of US and allied soldiers to the USA and elsewhere, on Bush's ability to plunge into another quagmire?

Duke: This war is a disaster for the United States, and I think that this has to put pause in some of the Zionist neo-cons about going into a new war. But the one wild card is that these neo-cons are crazy. They are insane people. They are Jewish fanatics, extremists, they are not normal people.

what fantasy world do you live in?
and no I will not alert this crap I want it here because it is false me and my kind or just me?

[shira]

61. Chulanowa asked to see evidence that his and your views were

similar to those of the far right.

And they are.

Like this is news to you?

[azurnoir]

66. You are claiming that I hold these views

you are seriously charging me with racism and antisemitism?

[shira]

71. you don't hold all their views

just as you don't hold all Hamas' views. But you hold many of the same views.....Israel is racist, colonialist, an apartheid state, AIPAC controls USA, Israel does no right, rarely ever condemn Hamas, etc....same canned shit. It's no coincidence that your hero, Norman Finkelstein, was invited to the same Holocaust denying conference in Iran with David Duke. He nearly attended it.

New left = old right.

Please, don't tell me this is news to you.

Now are you claiming I hold to all RW, neo-con, warmongering, conservative views?

[azurnoir]

74. My hero?

and no the projection exhibited is not news by any means

[azurnoir]

28. jpost, Reuters, ynet Ha'aretz? mmmkay n/t

[azurnoir]

59. Right here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=259292

albeit I will correct my original statement it is Jeffery Goldberg not Joshua I had written Jeffery in the first place, ioh and I forgot FoxNews

As to FreeRepupblic you reposted a letter in a thread called I was the soldier who slept in your home or some such that had been posted as a thread and which was locked and I think deleted because it was from FreeRepublic, you posted it with no link but a number of posters remembered it any way

[shira]

62. Jeffrey Goldberg is not RW

He's a progressive. And I've never posted anything from FreeRepublic. Keep trying, though. That letter from a soldier was originally published in the Israeli newspaper Maariv, BTW.

But let's not play your game of "look over there at Shira's sources". Let's focus a little more on your I/P views that are basically the same as those of Pat Buchanon and David Duke, okay? You know, new left same as the old right? You don't have a problem with that, do you?

[azurnoir]

64. You are lieing shira

you did repost an article from FreeRepublic as I said it was originally posted as a thread by someone else the thread was quickly locked and deleted you reposted the letter a day or so later with no link but alas a number of posters recognized it perhaps it was deleted but you can claim as you wish anyone who reads this forum much also knows its the truth
as for your other claims pfffft

[shira]

70. you mean this letter?

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2009/01/post_45.html

I don't know, last time I checked CAMERA is not FreeperRepublic. Actually, if you google the letter, there are lots of websites that carry it besides FreeperRepublic.

Nice try though, Ms. "look over there" while parroting Duke/Buchanon hate views. Or have you had enough of this dumbass LW/RW parroting nonsense yet?

[azurnoir]

75. LOL nice try

you originally posted it with no link why?

[Chulanowa]

21. Oh goodie!

1) You're an Arab-hating, muslim-bashing, pro-war goofball who can't make a decent argument to save your life and never has anything resembling facts at hand to bolster what few halfway capable arguments you make. Your positions champion not just the deaths of more Palestinians, but also the deaths of more Israelis, in a perpetual state of war that really only profits the American arms industry. For you every Palestinian kid dead in the street is a good thing - one less roach - and every Israeli kid dead in the street is, too - one more reason to kill roaches. you can compare me to Dukey-boy and Buchanan all you like - as usual you offer nothing by way of defending your own argument - but your place as another half-baked right-winger fluttering around on DU is well-earned.

2) I have plenty of empathy for the victims of terrorism in Israel. They're not to be held responsible for the shitheads that end up running - what are Israelis going to do, stay home and let the shitheadedest politician win? The trouble is, there are a lot fewer of them than there are victims of Israeli aggression against Palestinians. The Israeli victims of terror get ready access to hospitals. Their names are on the news here in America. They are treated with every ounce of human dignity that can be mustered, and very rightly so. What do Palestinians get? According to people like you, if they die, they deserved to die. Their names are irrelevant, because to you they are not human. My entire outlook on the situation is based on the two virtues of justice and compassion. It just so happens that one offender is much more egregious and has the bad habit of using my tax dollars to do so.

3) Who said anything about zionism here? A little case of protesting too much? No, Shira, you poor uneducated sap, Israel and Palestine's conflict is an extension of earlier imperialisms by Britain. Please do yourself a favor and study the history relating to the breakup of the British Empire. It was fucking messy, and Israel / Palestine is just one of the many messes purposefully engineered by the British whenever they left a colony. But if you want to talk aboiut zionism, as related to imperialism, how about Israel's constantly-expanding borders? Maybe it doesn't count as "empire" on the scale of the British, or even the Swedes, but the base action and intent is the same - "Conquer the natives, take their shit, make it ours"

You might also want to research the Zionist movement. While there was a distinct sense of "Flush the Jews" in western Europe and America leading to the foundation of Israel, the Zionists themselves had wanted to be separated from the goyim since the late 1800's. It was a combination of "We don't want you" and "We don't want to be around you, either". Too bad the pound of flesh had to come from the hides of people only marginally involved in the slapfight.

4) Hamas is not a race. You do realize that, right, by saying "I don't expect much of Hamas" I'm not being racist, I'm saying I think Hamas is by and large a bunch of fucking douchebags. That's some silly shit. Next you'll be telling Rwanda is run by Islamists or something. Oh, wait...

I'm not letting Hamas off the hook. I'm saying there are bigger fish to fry at the moment. Hamas wants to do a lot of things. Hamas is incapable of doing them. So let them fantasize for awhile while the grownups handle shit. I want to explain something to you, Shira. You may want to get a notepad, some scratch paper, whatever you need to help you understand something more complex than "Arab baaaaad! Palestinian Arab woooooorse!"

Where does Hamas get its power, Shira? Honestly take a moment to think about this. What makes Hamas strong? What makes Fatah strong? Or Islamic Jihad and the PLO, what made them strong in their time? I'm sure that, as bigoted as your reasoning usually is, you know the actual answer to this - the Palestinians are angry and powerless, and will grant power to those who are able to give form and function to that anger.

But why are the Palestinians angry? Well, at this point, perhaps you, being you, will just flail your hands and mumble something about how irrational Arabs are. Yes, the reasons for Palestinian anger are so often brushed away as meaningless, irrational, undeserved, etc. It's funny how every angry person who's not white is "irrational" of course...

The Palestinians are angry because their shit was stolen, firstly. Forget 1948, that violation is pretty much just a philosophical argument these days. But 1967. 1982. 1996. 2006. The theft of property would be bad enough, but there's the further actions of Israel - No matter how you cut it, visiting group reprisals upon Palestinians in response to an Islamic Jihad bomb is immoral, illegal, and wrong. But it's what happens and nobody says a word. Noncombatants are regularly killed in both sides of the Palestinian territories, and not so much as a "my bad" comes out of Israel. Arab-Israeli citizens are evicted and ejected from their homes to make room for "nationals". More land continues to be stolen by settlers, quite often at gunpoint. Home invasions by Israeli soldiers are commonplace.Israeli terrorists gun down fifty at a mosque, blow up twenty in a church, and they get called "lone crazies" or "disturbed individuals" if they get a mention at all. The people of Palestine are degraded, attacked, and oppressed, and

The worst part is, all these other powerful nations, who look all solemn and righteous while speaking about human rights in the UN... don't give a flying fuck about the Palestinians. Like you, they wobble their hands and hem and haw about Hamas and terrorism and juse this to justify their own neglect towards the men, women, and children living under the conditions imposed upon them by both Israel and the terrorists. As if this weren't bad enough, Palestinian attempts at peaceful solutions are ignored, as was the situation when the West Bank wall was brought to the ICJ and the ruling brushed off. Good-faith agreements between Israel and whoever's running Palestine that day fall apart, almost always at the hands of Israel... And all the world's sympathy goes to Israel, excuses are made for Israel, and the facts of the situation are twisted to make the Palestinians the bad guys.

This is why the Palestinians are angry. They are subject to theft, rape, murder, and invasion, they are treated as nothing by the international community, and their attempts at peace are thrown back in their face with laughter and piss. Do you really wonder why they might just say "fuck this shit" and throw in with Hamas? The people of Palestine are fucked no matter the direction they take, so might as well tget the visceral gratification of letting the thugs run the show.

But hey, wait a minute. What if all these slights and offenses and violations were eundone, amended, or even just, in some cases, apologized for? What if, maybe, just maybe, Israel lived up to all the rhetoric you claim for it and took a "be the better man" policy, and began following international law, respecting rulings of courts its a member of, and not going Wounded Knee every eight months? If Israel began acting in good faith towards the Palestinians, do you think this would help or harm Hamas? if tomorrow, Israel were to give the "settlers" the option of packing their shit up or becoming subject to the Palestinian Authority's rule, do you think Hamas would grow in power or decrease? If, when innocents are killed by an Israeli strike against militants or whatever, Israel apologized and honestly tried to make restitution to the families, do you think this would increase or decrease support for violence against Israel? Hell, what if Israel stopped killing militants and actually subjected them to trial? What effect would that have, I wonder.

Hamas is in power, Shira, because Palestinians are angry. Palestinians are angry because of the way Israel and the rest of the world treats them. Hamas is a symptom, abuse and neglect the disease. So long as people like yourself remain proponents of extrajudicial violence, non-negotiation, tready violation, and the abandonment of international law, Hamas or organizations like it will remain in power. You want to pretend to give a shit about how Hamas treats Palestinians? Well, you better stand the fuck up and take notice of the fact that Hamas is only there because other people have been treating Palestinians like shit for so long.

[shira]

41. not so good for you....read #36 before this one

Did you enjoy reading up on your rightwing, intellectual counterparts, David Duke and Pat Buchanon? Are you now convinced that you're JUST as hateful, intolerant, non-caring, and warmongering as they are? Oh - but you'll tell me YOU care for Arabs, Jews, and Muslims, YOU are not a warmonger, YOU don't hate Arabs, Jews, and Muslims, you really care if they die, blah, blah, blah, it's just THEM, those RWers, not you.

:eyes:

Enough of the juvenile name-calling and ad-hominems.


1. Palestinians suffer greatly under Hamas as well as in other nations where they are refugees. Those who champion the Palestinian cause rarely make mention of these Palestinians who suffer under other Palestinians or Arabs. Why? What's behind it, in your opinion?

2. You're still advocating a different standard for Hamas, which is wonderful for Hamas and terrible for everyone in their path - including Palestinians. They are the "democratically elected" govt, after all. What they do effects the Palestinians they rule over. How can you advocate treating Hamas with kid gloves when their policies hurt Palestinians FAR MORE than they hurt Israelis? By letting Hamas do what they will, Hamas gets the message that people like yourself are behind all that they do and that they have a free hand to do even more of it, so why should they stop?

3. We've been over why Hamas is in power and why Palestinians are angry and you were proven wrong before. Israel's actions WRT Gaza 2005 should have elicited a more positive response by "angry" Palestinians. That was the end to occupation and settlements in the W.Bank. The Palestinians had their own land, the "Crossings Agreement" was settled with the PA, as they also had access to the Rafah crossing to Egypt and there was no naval blockade yet. But no, violence only ESCALATED and Hamas came to power, why? This shatters your argument, just as Camp David/Taba 2000 does as well. The end to the conflict could have happened then. Israel proved its intentions were good - they had just pulled out of southern Lebanon months before. The very LEAST Arafat could have done was to say, "hey, this is the most serious offer you guys have given us in 60 years....let's really try to work this out". Didn't happen. Arafat didn't even make a COUNTER-offer. He directed the 2nd Intifada as a response. Again, this shatters your argument. You believe that if only Israel is nicer and REALLY tries to work with the PA, all will be well and Hamas will be out of business. It hasn't worked that way.

[Chulanowa]

56. Just read it

Not seeing too much similarity, beyond a common annoyance at the whole "unquestioned funding from the US" thing. I don't recall ever making anything resembling a claim that Washington is "Zionist occupied territory" or that the Neocons are "a bunch of fanatical jews" or any such thing. What you're telling me is that either you don't read the arguments presented here, or that you didn't read the shit you're trying to compare those arguments to, Shira.

No, I'm not a warmonger. You won't find me justifying the use of war for either side here - though you will find posts from me explaining that I understand where the Palestinian side is coming from, and also that I can't blame Israel for defending itself. Both are paired with criticisms of the means both parties use to attain that goal.

1) Because it's a symptom. As I said before, why is Hamas in power? Why are there Palestinian refugees? Remove the root causes for these problems - which as I also explained, revolves around Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and their territory - and the abuses from Hamas and host nations will no longer be a problem. In the meantime, Shira, I assure you we do care about the general Palestinian population. What, you think we get pissed when Israel kills thirteen hundred of them because we just want to bitch about Israel?

2) No, I'm not, and if you were capable of reading what I actually write, rather than just assuming you know what I've written, you would see this. Hamas is a problem for the Palestinians. Israel is a bigger problem for the Palestinians, and one that happens to empower Hamas. Which problem should we focus on? You, and all the other chuckleheads who think Israel can do no wrong and is justified in everything it does, will of course answer we should focus only on Hamas. And then only on Fatah. And then only on whoever else the palestinians come up with... All the while expecting that we ignore the root cause of why all these groups come to power.

3) Ah yes. Camp David. "We'll pull out of Gaza, so long as you let us take whatever we deem important in the West Bank". In exchange for all of the Aquifers and farmland in the West Bank, Israel even offered a portion of the Negev desert, including the site of a toxic waste dump. This would divide the West Bank into three separate portions, each subject to Israeli military control. In addition, Israel would control the borders of both Gaza and the three West bank portions. In exchange for these ever-so-generous terms, the Palestinians would have to forgo any and all claims to property.

As for the Intifada, it started two months later, and came fast on the heels of such stellar Israel decisions as a declaration that it would not be ceding Abu Dis as it had agreed to do in 1995, that it was building more settlements in the West Bank, and when Arab residents of Sur Bahir and Suwahara received expropriation notices; their houses lay in the path of a planned Jewish-only highway. Opening fire at protesters at the Al-Aqsa mosque certainly didn't help.

So, cue Taba, where Israel dropped its demands for border controls, and the Palestinians offered their own terms - you know, the counter-offer you claim didn't happen. In this proposal, the West Bank would be one solid territory, though the Western Border would be kind of chewed-up looking to allow for Israeli control of those colonies.

On January 28, Ehud Barak broke off the Taba negotiations under pressure from the Israeli public.

Rwanda was the fault of Muslims, Camp David was a generous offer, I sound like Pat Buchanan, the Left doesn't care about Palestinians... Is there any more ignorant shit you want to say, Shira?

[shira]

60. It's getting more difficult to take you seriously here

If you read up on Buchanon and Duke, you'd find lots of similarities. They say they care for Palestinians, all Israel does is illegal, nazi-like, and collective punishment, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, colonialism, racism, controlling America via AIPAC, etc... all the same canned shit that your cronies utilize. Sorry the truth hurts so much and you're just as whacked out as the far right. They're more honest and open about their hatred.

1. Your answer as to why there's no real concern for Palestinian victims of Hamas or Palestinian refugee victims in other countries is absurd. You're basically blaming Israel for putting Hamas in charge and leaving Palestinians to rot as refugees elsewhere. Solve the problem, end the suffering. But what do you base your prediction on? Let's say the conflict is solved tomorrow. Then what? Hamas is out of power and so is Fatah? Says who? More moderate leadership somehow takes power over the extremists and makes life more liveable for all Palestinians in the new Palestine? How will that happen? The extremists won't let it happen. Sure, it would be nice - but you have ZERO to base this on. For all we know, Fatah and Hamas could rule another 20-80 years after "peace" with Israel is made and Palestinian lives would remain miserable, just like their Arab brothers in all Arab countries surrounding Israel. Would you then "care" for Palestinian suffering? I doubt it. The point is that when Arafat took power about 20 years ago, one of the first things he did was kill all Palestinian leadership of the 1st Intifada that wanted to then make a peace deal with Israel. THAT moderate leadership had to go, as well as all dissent against the PA. That's what led to this current mess. Get rid of the PA and let the grass roots leadership that DOES care for average Palestinians rule, and only THEN will there be a 2-state solution where Palestinians can prosper. Let's not pretend that before Hamas came to power just 3 years ago, that there was PA leadership ready for peace. If that was the case, Hamas would have never been elected, given that Gaza was abandoned by Israel and given to the PA just months before elections.

2. Suppose the conflict goes on another 20-30 years and Palestinians keep suffering under Hamas or the next nasty government in charge. Will you keep asking that we focus mainly on the "bigger" problem, Israel, while virtually ignoring what Hamas or the next evil Palestinian government in charge does to its people? Another miserable generation of Palestinians, what's the difference, right? Why not criticize Palestinian leadership harshly and demand better living conditions for Palestinians under Islamist rule? If you respect their "democratic" leadership, then that "democratic" leadership has responsibilities too. You cannot possibly expect Islamist rulers to cut a peace deal with Israel when they keep treating their own people worse than shit, can you? They treat their people like shit BECAUSE they don't want a peace deal with Israel.....they're in it for themselves and their extremist ideology .Palestinian lives are cheap to Hamas. Eliminating Israel and establishing an Islamic state in place of it is FAR more important in the long run.

Ever seen this before?
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=52&x_article=960

Tell me your thoughts on the above article, if you choose to respond. What that "build-your-own-home" program showed was that Palestinian leadership of that time (30 years ago, before Hamas) didn't want conditions more conducive towards peace (neither did UNRWA). Nothing has changed until this day. If that article doesn't get your blood pressure up, nothing will. And THAT is the conflict of the past 60 years in a nutshell, sadly enough.


3. CD/Taba and Gaza 2005 weren't perfect situations, but they were a HELLUVA start that should have elicited better than 2 calls to war by Palestinian leadership. It takes 2 to tango. If Palestinian leadership were really interested in peace, then escalating violence and going to 2 wars should not have been their first responses to CD/Taba and Gaza 2005. What's so difficult about this for you? You say if only Israel did their part.....well they did! They met PA leadership more than halfway and PA leadership decided war was better than trying for peace in their own state. Remember, this is not the same PA leadership as in the 1st intifada, when many Israelis first thought peace was possible. Those leaders were wiped out early on by Arafat.

What on earth makes you think the PA of the past 20 years is even interested in their own state, side by side with Israel - and an end to this conflict? Do you have ANY evidence showing PA leadership is "desperate" for peace, wants their own state, side by side with Israel? Any evidence at all? What have they done in 20 years to PREPARE for having their own state - ie, preparing to take on Palestinian refugees, give them jobs, homes, etc.?

Have you ever read Shlomo ben Ami on CD/Taba 2000?
http://www.weizmann.ac.il/home/comartin/israel/ben-ami.html

Shlomo ben Ami is a great leftist, Israeli peace dove. What he shows WRT CD/Taba 2000 is that Israel was far more desperate for a peace deal than Arafat's side was - which BTW was one reason ben Ami didn't believe Arafat was all that interested in making peace, knowing Israel wanted it more than he did, Arafat could just up the price all he wanted, hold out for more, never make a counter-offer, threaten more violence, etc.

Really now - you can continue to be abusive with your tired ad hominems, but the ignorance, sadly enough, is entirely yours. If all you have in a future response to this is your usual mouthing-off, Buchanon/Duke far rightwing, style hate narratives and other canned noise, save it for someone else. Otherwise, feel free to prove me wrong - if you can. No more ad-hominems, just debate, okay?

[Chulanowa]

77. I don't strive to be taken seriously by you

I accept that you're too far gone for any sort of reasoning. However, the fact is you continue spewing bullshit, so I have to keep correcting it for the benefit of people who may be uninformed and take your blithering racist ignorance as some sort of official writ on hte matter.

I've never said all Israel does is illegal. I've said a lot of what it does is illegal, and so far you've been utterly unable to show me where I'm wrong. Israel stands in open defiance of UN resolutions, treaties it's signed, court rulings, both by the ICJ and by its own supreme court, etc. This is all illegal.Yes, Hamas breaks the law, too, but if you're going to use Hamas as the yardstick to judge Israel by, well, you obviously have a lower opinion of Israel than me.

I've compared the Israeli government to the Third Reich when applicable. Militaristic states based on an absurd definition of ethnicity who seek to quash and disenfranchise "rival" groups all bear certain similarities. Would you prefer if I compared Israel to Saddam's Iraq when the situations come up? Franco's Spain? Hamas' Palestine? :)

Collective punishment, colonialism, and racism (even against other Jews) are simple facts when it comes to Israel, Shira. if David Duke and his buddies are saying this, I think it reflects more on their ability to read a newspaper than on anything regarding to me. Israel's not to the "apartheid" stage yet - Apartheid is suppression of the majority by hte minority, and even if we take Israel and the two territories as one whole place, the Israelis still have a couple million majority.

I've never said Israel controls America, certainly not through AIPAC. America is controlled by neocolonial and extremist Christian factions that want the middle east destabilized in order to reap the resources of the region, and they don't mind too much if a whole bunch of Jews die, since according to these people's thought processes, the more Jews die, the closer Jesus is to coming back.

Again, you're showing me you don't know what you're talking about. Though at least this time you've cleared up some of my confusion - while you seem to display a curiously deep wealth of information about Pat and David, you obviously don't read very much of what I write.

1) Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Maybe you are paying attention.

Before you argue, think of a very similar situation that involves neither Israel nor Palestine. Think about the U.S. and Iraq. Damn near every problem facing the Iraqi people today can be traced back to America. Not every problem no, but damn near. From our initial funding and arming of Saddam, to that ridiculous embargo that only increased his oppressive abilities against his own people, to the current occupation where our presence causes more harm than it does good. Our actions have created the conditions that make Iraq miserable today, everything from the goon squads to the insane cancer rate, to the apathetic and foreign-bought government, we either did it or enabled it. The situation faced by the Palestinians isn't terribly different from that faced by the Iraqis. The only difference is the method in which the occupying forces call their particular Arabs names - "Hajji" for Iraqis, "Arabushim" for the Palestinians.

Only we really have the power to fix Iraq, and only Israel really has the power to fix Palestine. You ask what would happen if, heaven forbid, pace broke out tomorrow? I can't say I know, other than I would be pretty certain everyone would be very surprised. Why don't we give it a try and see what happens. Even if you're right and it still ends up in a repressive Hamas dictatorship, well, I'm sure the Palestinians would prefer a repressive Hamas dictatorship that didn't involve constant assaults every time the Israelis need an election stunt.

Would I still care? You bet your ass. You, much like Vegesaurus, keep asking this, and keep ignoring the answer. Either accept the answer or shut the fuck up, seriously. if nothing else, maybe you could find some way to demonstrate your own give-a-shit for all these Arabs. So far all you're doing them is trying to exploit their suffering to "prove Israel right". Sort of like how your good friends at Stormfront maintain that the suffering of blacks in Kongo proves that the racism in America ain't so bad.

2) The conflict will not go on that long, Shira. Of that, I have confidence. Of the exact ending, I'm unsure. That'sd a topic for another discussion I suppose.

The next evil Palestinian government? Evil? Personally I try to avoid such simplistic moralist hysteria when discussing a government. But since you've gone ahead and declared this Palestinian government - and all others that may follow it "evil" am I suppose you then view the current Israeli government - and all that follow - as "good"? Well, I'm not sure why we should even continue the discussion, since someone somewhere died and made you the judge of absolute moral essence... :D

As I said before. I do not believe the sorts you label as "evil" will manage to hold onto much power if an equitable peace were reached by Israel and Palestinians. Keep in mind, the majority of Palestinians don't live under Hamas rule. I know it makes an awesome scapegoat for you, Hamas this, Hamas that... but Hamas really only has its toes dug in in Gaza. it's really not much of a base of power, you know. Palestinians, aside from being rightfully angry, are generally sane, level-headed people... who are also ratehr heavily armed and have a keen sense of when they're being fucked around. They would likely have the backing of both Syria and Egypt in helping get rid of Hamas and its islamist sorts if the guys didn't just back down. Syria wants a secular Arab nationalist state in Palestine, and Egypt... Well, Egypt doesn't want Hamas hanging out next to the back door.

Have I seen that before? Sure have. I've also seen international law. These people are legally entiled to their homes and property that are currently within Israel. Moving them somewhere else also happens to be a violation of international law. While I couldn't blame any Palestinians who took the offer, I also can't blame the PLO or the UN from discouraging it, any morethan I could blame AIM from discouraging tribemembers from leasing land at fifty cents an acre.

But you've shown the ability to cite a source for your claims. This is progress. Next maybe you can work on a source that isn't a propaganda hose?

3) Camp David was an unlubed assfuck. That you admit so much as "they weren't perfect" tells me you understand how much of a fucking screwjob the Camp David Accords were - if it's enough to get Shira to admit less than perfection from Israel, the rest of us can assume it's pretty fucking awful.

Taba had potential. I wouldn't have gone for it myself if I were a Palestinian, but then I also think the 1868 Fort Laramie treaty is completely valid and needs to be honored, too, so I'm a bit of an idealist. Potential or no... the Israelis walked out of it.

And after admitting that it was a fucking mess, you swing right into baseless rhetoric and appeal to authority.

We're done here, Shira. Go to bed.

[shira]

79. Pathetic

Nothing new....you came up with nothing to defend your canned, refuted viewpoints. Nothing to defend your view that Hamas is only in power due to Israel not doing enough (Gaza 2005 destroys that view), nothing showing that Hamas will be out of power if a peace deal is struck tomorrow (they'd destroy Fatah in the W.Bank in days if the IDF left immediately), and nothing to defend your view about the PA taking CD/Taba seriously enough to want to make peace at the time.

The sorriest part, however, was when you wrote that you couldn't blame the UN for being opposed to the build-your-own-home program, a program that would have closed down the refugee camps and put all Palestinians in their own homes. IOW, you can't blame the UN for perpetuating the refugee crisis and leaving Palestinians in squalor for more generations. How disgustingly apathetic can you possibly be, and claim to "care" for Palestinians? You're a faux progressive who cares as much for them (only as manipulated political pawns) as Pat Buchanon or David Duke. If it were up to you, Palestinians would remain in refugee camps another 50 years. I had you rightly pegged long ago.

[oberliner]

9. Peter Tatchell is not Jonah Goldberg

Jonah Goldberg is a RW tool.

The author of this piece is Peter Tatchell.

Peter Tatchell is a life-long human rights activist.

He has devoted his life to numerous progressive causes, most prominently LGBT rights.

He has campaigned against the death penalty, the Vietnam War, and child labor.

He has fought on behalf of women's rights and what he has called female emancipation.

He has written for numerous left-wing publications in support of left-wing causes.

He is a member of the Green Party who is committed to environmental as well as social justice causes.

This man is a committed leftist.

This is the person speaking out against Hamas.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Many liberals ignore the Islamic side of Hamas, which is commited to the subjugation of women and

other minorities.

[azurnoir]

14. No we do not ignore it all

we just find some "concerns" claimed by the proIsraelis particularly womens rights to be a bit questionable

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. I have seen it first hand in the US and elsewhere

[Chulanowa]

25. Are you really a professor? 'Cause you're kind of breaking logic here.

You're claiming to prove a negative.

"Leftists don't care about this situation. I've seen them not care" - Uhm... How?

I suppose that if you mean you've had leftists and liberals and all those other dirty L-word motherfuckers come up and tell you "hey, I don't care" well, that would be one thing. But you seem to be arguing from absence of evidence here. In fact you are arguing directly counter to evidence, of several of us liberals right here, right now, telling you to cram it because we damn sure do care.

The irony of you ignoring evidence to bolster your own claim that we're ignoring stuff is presumably lost to you.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. I wonder if all these leftists wear 'we ignore the islamic side of Hamas' tshirts? n/t

[shira]

35. so, in other words, Tatchell and others

are wrong about a certain segment of the pro-Palestinian left?

[Violet_Crumble]

38. Nooo, I didn't say that....

For a change, how about you attempt to address what people you are replying to actually say instead of coming up with stuff they haven't said? For anyone else who's having a bit of a struggle with reading comprehension, I was having a bit of a chuckle about the professors rather whiffy claim that he knows what lefties ignore...

[shira]

43. Tatchell says

the left and the anti-war movement ignores Hamas's repression of the Palestinian people. Do you disagree? Is he wrong?

[Violet_Crumble]

46. Sorry, I was only having some fun with the professors comment...

Which is what I'm pretty sure I just told you. Yep, just checked and I did. That's about the extent of any conversation I want to have with you in this thread, seeing as how you still haven't been cured of the urge to misread what others say to you...

[Chulanowa]

84. Yes, I do disagree, and I think he's wrong

If he's speaking anecdotally about some leftists or anti-war people he knows who may be ignoring it, that's one thing - and I would wager money that if he informed them about it, they would care.

But "The left" and "the anti-war movement"? No. That's some John Birch bullshit.

[azurnoir]

58. Just exactly what have you seen first hand in the US?

keep in mind I work in the medical profession when you answer

[Idealism]

15. What to do about religion?

It is something I strongly agree with Marx on: religion truly is the opium of the masses. You cannot pry religion away from people, you cannot infuse facts into a theological debate (from my own experience). Sharia law is obviously ultra-conservative and oppressive to a wide range of people, but how do you change people's way of thinking? We have tried CIA-backed coups and secular military dictatorships and both have fallen to conservative Islamic regimes (except for Egypt, but that may change in the near-distant future with Mubarak aging).

Sharia law is like all things, it has its good points (anti-usury, anti-corruption) and its bad points (women are second-class citizens, anti-GLBT) being the most basic. The bad heavily outweighs the good in my mind, but according to conservative Muslims, it is the only way to live their lives. So how do you separate an entire people from their deeply-held convictions?

Something else that bothers me about the situation: Do we have a moral right to try to tell another people that their religion is oppressive, and that they need to change their beliefs? Why should anyone change their beliefs to appease someone else? Do you think there is a viable way to get Muslim states to rethink their ideology (viable does not mean another ethnic cleansing like Iraq)?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. Religion is some form will be with us forever, but some are clearly more of a threat than others

[Idealism]

19. Agreed on that, but what to do about Sharia law?

Do you have any ideas? We can't boycott the countries because we need to get our oil from somewhere, we don't give much (if any) USAID to these conservative regimes so we can't threaten to cut funding unless they comply with a change to secular governing...

The only think I can think of that may foster a change slowly would be monetary incentives for certain countries to become more secular, but that would require money that the US wouldn't want to spend I don't believe...

Looking for some ideas here!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. Reject any attempt to legitimize it or use the "cultural difference" meme

In London and Paris, local vigilantes are starting to enforcing Sharia style rules. Black Muslims attempted it in the US a while back as well. We need to stand fast against that, here and elsewhere. Refuse to negotiate or accommodate any illegal and immoral attempt to control the behavior of others. Use the criminal justice system, civil rights laws and the civil courts as needed. If they get violent, do whatever is necessary to make them stop. This approach should be taken against any persons or groups doing that, not just muslims.

We also need to be proactive in classes (my bent) and elsewhere to insure that all students, regardless of cultural or religious background, understand the rights and expectations in this country for everyone and that violating them will punished severely. When the law is broken and attempt to use a cultural defense (as was tried in a rape case in Australia) it should be rejected out of hand. Not all cultural/religious differences can or should be accommodated. We should protest, shame, mock, revile, etc. those items that are unacceptable in a free and progressive society, not just from Islam, but from any source.

We also need to publicize and criticize any attempt by religious groups to control speech about their religion. We have the right to blaspheme *anything*. Its not hate speech to criticize a seminal prophet, be it Mohamed, Mary Baker Eddy, L. Ron Hubbard, Joesph Smith, or others. If the true believers don't like what is said or published, they don't have to read it. Instead there are efforts, mostly Islamic, to criminalize anything negative and at times even historical discussions about Islam. I don't see the Mormons, Catholics, Buddhist, Baha'i, Wiccans, Gaians, Jews, Shinto etc going that route. We need to hold fast to concept of free speech means tolerating critical speech of someones sacred cow, scriptures, or beliefs.

As to influencing other nations, that seems to be happening fairly well. Their cultural guardians have been complaining for generations about the Americanization and Westernization of their cultures. That portends some success. More over, when their young people come to the west for education, we can infect them with vile concepts as free speech, freedom of religion, and tolerance. The more educated you are, the more secular you are. Its a start.

[Chulanowa]

24. Careful, the Scientologists will sue you for that

In all cases, it's more the individual interpretation and use of religion that is the issue. A good man will use the ideals of his religion to do good things, a bad man will use the bad things in his religion to do bad things. In both cases the religion itself is nothing but an excuse or rationale for actions the person would have taken anyway.

Now I suppose you didn't mean Scientology when you posted this. Are you going to tell the several posters around here that their religion is "a threat" - be they Muslims (As I'm sure you intended) or Christians (as many others claim are the threat) or Buddhists (My personal favorite punching bag)?

A religion is an idea. Much as how the idea of nuclear physics can either give us a deep understanding of the foundations of the universe, or incinerate millions in a fiery hellstorm, Religion is on its own, neutral. It's what you do with it that counts.

As for Sharia law, I'm sorry but we in western societies really don't have any place to point a finger of criticism here. Our legal system is just as backwards, barbaric, half-baked, and unjust as Sharia, or Legalism, or any other variation on law because - like Religion - it's how you interpret and use it that counts.

[pelsar]

37. you actually comparing western democracies with shari law?

s for Sharia law, I'm sorry but we in western societies really don't have any place to point a finger of criticism here

shari law is based on religion...the one thing you and i agree on, that its used to excuse any and all actions. Western Democracies are based on an ideal of equal rights for all, something religious based legal systems are totally against.

shari law as all religious based justice system should be banned from the face of the earth (at best a "watered down" version that lets them "keep" the quaint traditional customs)

your actually going to say that the talibans system is "not as bad" as the one in the US?

[pelsar]

26. do you really really believe that?

Do we have a moral right to try to tell another people that their religion is oppressive, and that they need to change their beliefs?

because if you do, i would say you are now backing the settlement enterprise which is based on religion or the very least, those in Hebron, who can trace back their history thousands of years....or is your "moral right problem about telling people how to live, very selective?

shari law is extremely oppressive..and involves groups not of the same genes...

[Idealism]

72. It was a question, not a statement.

I was asking hypothetically if someone (like the United States) has the moral right to tell another government how they rule or what they believe in is flawed. I was in no way declaring that we absolutely do or do not have the right to do this, as indicated by the question mark at the end of the sentence.

[Chulanowa]

23. I was comparing Shira to Goldberg, not the author of the article

And you're right, Goldberg is a tool. I just figured that since damn near every post Shira makes revolves around "Liberals hate Jews" she might as well go full-bore and just call us Nazis. It would save typing, don't you think?

Tatchell is just being wrong and using a straw man to do so. Happens sometimes.

[shira]

34. you need to pay better attention

There are several "lefts". Each article I cite here is written by a fellow liberal, like Tatchell in this case - and he is not wrong at all. There's a big problem with a certain segment of the left. Either you or ignorant of it or are in full denial.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. A quick explanation of the several "lefts" for Chulanowa...

This needs to be spelled out as unfortunately Shira is usually in a rush when posting and the haste makes it seem that she's continually flailing out at a singular *the left* which does tend to confuse most of us. So here to make it easier is a quick definition of the several "lefts"

The Good Left - Like Shira, they love Israel with a level of unwavering appreciation that's almost as creepy as finding out the guy you've been going out with has been collecting Dr Who mementos since he was a kid. They post for several hours a day spreading the good word about Israel and make sure the praise drowns out any of that nasty HaTiNg that the Bad Left do. They don't understand why the Bad Left has to HaTe Israel so much coz like they all ignore China's treatment of the Tibetans, which could prove awkward or else the Good Left would have to turn around and wail at people: Why??? Why is the air charred and singed in the same way as a bushfire but this time instead of devastation and death, it's charred with yr HaTrEd of China? (thanks to the person for posting that article with the really hilarious analogy! I'm so going to overuse it from now on!) Why obsess over China?? Why not say good things about China? All this hatred of China will make me sad and leave me with no choice but to call you a Chinese-hater!!!!' At times when Shira has the rare moment of agreement with what they say, the Good Left can include the likes of Seth Freedman and Amnesty International, etc....

The Bad Left - This is anyone who doesn't show sufficient levels of adoration for Israel. If they criticise Israel's policy or actions towards the Palestinians, they must be accused of HaTiNg Israel and hearting Hamas until they relent and start criticising Hamas to the exclusion of all else. The Bad Left rather strangely can encompass most people who are LW, and depending on whether Shira agrees with them or not at that particular moment, the likes of Seth Freedman and Amnesty International, etc can be relegated to the Bad Left category at will whenever they start to get critical of Israel....

Hope this helps....

[shira]

44. Seth Friedman and Peter Tatchell are too rightwing for you, Violet

They're useful for your rants on Israel - they're useless when they point out your hypocrisy.

Yep, got it - hope that helps.

[Violet_Crumble]

47. Oh drats. I forgot I was part of The Bad Left!!!!

Seth Friedman's too RW for me? Gosh, that's news to me, but whatever you say, Shira!

I'd love to stay and chew the fat some more but I've got to go do some ranting about (in order of rantiness and hypocriticness) China, Japan, Israel, Malcolm Fucking Turnbull, and Thailand. In the meantime, try reading through my earlier post a few times. It'll eventually dawn on you...

[pelsar]

27. and that is the timebomb.....

Fuck me for thinking we should hold a democratic, officially secular state with the fourth most-powerful military on earth to a higher standard than we hold a bunch of Banana Republic motherfuckers ruling over a slum.

that is precisly the problem...the hamas govt, either slum lord or the democratically elected govt of gaza, is highly intelligent educated people. There is no need to give them a lower standard as if they cant understand what are human rights, civil rights etc. They rule perfectly well using the means that they have chosen out of their own choice.

any particular reason you believe hamas cant rule using civil rights as their base?..besides the minor fact that they simply dont believe in it?

Give them the pass now, as the PA was given, and you simply encourage creating a society that as it develops will simply become another version of the taliban/iran/saudi arabia.....

______

and israelis are very aware of that and in fact dont use the "double standard"......they tend to believe that hamas/PA etc are intelligent enough to understand the rules of democractic rule and the dangers of a state that doesnt have it.

[LeftishBrit]

33. The author of this piece is as left-wing as they come. He would not think that 'Democrats are Nazis'

though he would probably regard them as a little too conservative for him.

He is a Green activist, to the left of the Labour party. He was formerly Labour, but was considered as on the far-left of the party even when Michael Foot was leader.


'Victory to Hamas? When Hamas is fighting a defensive battle against an invading force, yes. When Hamas invades Israel, the same voices will be calling for victory to Israel.'

If Hamas targeted the actual invading force instead of Israeli civilians; and if it hadn't killed more Palestinian opposition members than Israelis in the last Gaza conflict; then you might begin to have a point.

Neither the Israeli nor Palestinian leadership is worth much approval from left-wingers at present. A big ugh to the leadership (both sides) and best wishes to the people (both sides) for a better future, at peace, which at present can only be achieved by two states.

[Taitertots]

2. "Why are the left and the anti-war "

"movement ignoring Hamas's repression of the Palestinian people?"

People ignore things that disagree with deeply held convictions. Especially the ignorant, who tend to be the loudest with the deepest convictions.

The people who support Israel are not going to mention expanding settlements, proportionality of force, questionable democracy, and the part Israel played in the palestinian exodus.
The people who support Palestine are not going to mention genocidal aims of Hamas, forced jewish exodus from arab lands, any mention of motives of the Palestinian exodus.

[LeftishBrit]

6. Good points

People tend to ignore the darker actions of whichever country or group they support. And practically all countries and groups have their darker actions. Especially those at war.


'People ignore things that disagree with deeply held convictions.'

Exactly. Strongly pro-Israel people are unlikely to wish to compare the death toll in Israel at the hands of Palestinian rockets versus Israeli drivers. Strongly pro-Palestinian people are unlikely to wish to compare the death toll of Palestinians versus Israelis at the hands of Hamas during the Gaza war.

There is a horrible vicious circle, with both sides electing increasingly violent and RW leadership. This cycle needs to be reversed somehow.

[LeftishBrit]

5. Excellent article

And Tatchell, BTW, is about as left-wing as one can get. He is very much to the left of the mainstream in British politics.

He does not like right-wingers, whether the Israeli Right, or the Palestinian Right.

As regards why some (not most) members of the left sympathize with Hamas: much of it, IMO, is that old fallacy of 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Hamas is against the Israeli Right, and is strongly opposed by the Americans (often seen as intrinsically RW by the real left) - therefore it must be good and left-wing. Only it isn't.

[shira]

8. Hamas is not just against the Israeli right

they hate the Israeli left equally as much. Let's not pretend otherwise.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. Don't forget their Islamic stance against equal rights for women, non-muslims, etc

[LeftishBrit]

32. I didn't say otherwise. I was referring to PeterTatchell's views, not those of Hamas.

I said that *Tatchell* is against both the Israeli Right and the Palestinian Right, e.g. Hamas. Hamas are very RW, in my opinion and in Tatchell's.

ETA: Oh, I see what you mean. I did say that some (uninformed) left-wingers are pro-Hamas because it's against the Israeli Right, and opposed by America. Of course Hamas is also against the Israeli Left, but some left-wingers do not take this in, or are (unfortunately) unaware that there even is an Israeli Left. It's a very simplistic 'enemy of my enemy' view.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. I've noticed that LW credentials aren't worried about when it comes to pro-Palestinian writers...

I just don't see why his uber-lefty credentials are being trotted out. The more LW someone is, the more gravitas they carry or something? That's not how it seems to work here in the I/P forum from the reactions I've seen from people to other LW writers, that's all...

I think anyone reading the article can see that he doesn't like the RW and doesn't give Israel a pass, but thank you for pointing that out...

One last thing. I see posters here accused constantly of supporting Hamas when they've stated the exact opposite. I've been accused of the same even though I detest religious wankers like Hamas. I get annoyed at articles like this one from Tatchell that generalise about the Left and this supposed ignoring of things. There's not much I ignore when it comes to this conflict....

[shira]

45. well, gee......Friedman, Tatchell and other libs

must be IMAGINING what we are seeing from fellow progressives, huh? Not that YOU never generalize about RW'ers and pro-Israel people, right?

:eyes:

Looks like you've got a problem with self-criticism. You like to criticize others (Israel) and point out that others cannot handle criticism, but it looks like you speak mostly for yourself. Rather than admit, yes, there's a definite problem with a certain segment of the pro-Palestinian left, you attack the source of the criticism rather than the problem itself. Poor form, Violet.

[Violet_Crumble]

48. Please try addressing what I say in my posts if yr going to reply to them...

Haven't you worked out yet that rather than sit there and attack other posters (and that post of yrs contains nothing but attacks on me) you might get further if you stopped raging and tried to discuss things in a rational manner with others? I could at this point tell you that you can shove yr feeble attempts to mind read up yr very flatulent arse, but that *would* be poor form. Instead, I wish you'd at least attempt to control yr behaviour in this forum, and if you can't at least stop wasting my time by 'replying' to posts where I'm actually having a civil discussion with another poster..

[shira]

50. most of your responses are ad-hominems, so who are you kidding?

Look at posts #43 and #46. I tried politely discussing this with you and you acted like a child.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. Are you talking to yrself again? Those posts you list are yr posts...

And the first in particular is pretty damn abusive. You have one hell of a strange idea of what polite discussion is if that's what passes for it in yr neck of the woods. I've made it very clear (especially after being called a liar by you in another abusive post) that I have no interest in having any discussions with you, but it appears that you think it's important to throw a barrage of 'questions' at me and claim I've said things I've never said in a variety of posts. What is it that you think yr achieving out of it? Is it meant to impress me? Win you friends and admirers? What do you gain out of it?

[shira]

55. did you read posts #43 and #46? what was abusive about #43?

I ask questions politely, you act like a child.

When I tried having a polite discussion with you before, about "der Dersh", you disappeared for weeks. Remember this one?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x236571#238267

I'm all for having a polite discussion with someone who I disagree vehemently with. It appears you don't.

[Violet_Crumble]

67. I was hoping I wouldn't have to spell it out for you,,,,

There are two main reasons why I feel it's a waste of time to try to engage in any discussion with you and that it's best to leave you alone to do whatever it is you think yr doing...

The first is that you have a tendency to reply to posts from me and others, ignore what we've actually said and start yr post with something along the lines of 'so in other words....' and talk about something that hasn't been said. It seems an exercise in futility to embark on an adventure down whatever path yr heading down due to the second reason, which is that you ignore what people say and insist they believe whatever it is that you'd prefer them to believe (eg someone who has stated in a recent thread that they oppose Hamas is a supporter of Hamas). There seems little need to get involved with my own thoughts and opinions (especially since you informed me in another thread that I'm dishonest) when yr willing to do all the work and inform everyone what yr idea of my thoughts and opinions are.

There's also the matter of being unable and unwilling to have any sort of constructive discussion with a person who defines the term bias in a way that has partisan groups that defend Israel's actions as not being extremely biased, but partisan groups that support the Palestinian people are deemed to be extremely biased. It's very much like the supporter of a footy team and nothing is going to sway them from dividing everything into *us and them*, *good vs evil*, *they're making things up but my side doesn't*. People like that are True Believers and tend to get very cranky indeed when their opinions which they sometimes try to pass off as facts are questioned. Last year in real life I encountered a similar creature to the partisan pro-Israeli type, and that was the partisan pro-China type. I steered well clear of them and kept my opinions on Tibet to myself until they'd left town...

That's not to mention the abuse. You've called me dishonest, told me I hate Israel coz according to you I always criticise it no matter what, I'm blind, and the list goes on and on. Why should anyone be expected to want to engage in a discussion with someone who does that when there are quite a few others in this forum who I disagree with on things who I know I can have discussions with minus the abusive crap?

I notice you didn't bother answering the question I asked you about what it is you think yr achieving?

on edit: almost forgot. It's incredibly lame to make out that you know the reason why I 'vanished' for a few weeks, though it shouldn't surprise me that you tried to do so. The reason for my 'vanishing' is very mundane and while no-one's under any obligation to tell you why they don't hang out at DU (or in my case anywhere else on the net) for a few weeks, I will. I've been selling my home, moving out, and buying a new one. That was topped off with over two weeks of extremely hot (way over 100 degrees for those who don't do celcius) weather where I didn't have the energy to do anything, let alone get on the internet, and escaping the heat was my number 1 priority. But now I know that stuff wasn't actually the reason why I wasn't at DU because when it comes to me and what I know, you know better, which leads me back to that being the reason why I think it's a waste of time engaging in any discussion with you...

[shira]

73. then so be it

if you choose to comment on any of my future posts, I'll respond. Otherwise, we're done.

[LeftishBrit]

49. Tatchell said 'significant sections (not all) of the left'

So he isn't generalizing to the whole left.

As a left-winger myself, I also hate broadbrushing of 'the left'- especially as, if there is one thing that characterizes with the left, it's factionalism. To misquote Will Rogers: I don't belong to any organized political movement; I'm a left-winger.

I also dislike it and point it out when people quote right-wingers in support of their viewpoints, and that's happened on both the pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian side.

I agree that sometime people are falsely accused of being Hamas supporters when they simply criticize Israel; but it happens on both sides. Some people assume that anyone who criticizes Hamas must be a supporter of the Occupation, the bombing of Gaza, and everything that Israel does. For that matter, I was even once accused on GD of supporting a 'war based on lies' (and so it is!) in Iraq, because I objected to the allegation that Israel had got America into that war.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. I didn't say he was generalising to the whole left...

But when anyone makes a statement like that about many or most of a group, then it is generalising. I think it's a pretty wrong call for anyone to claim that significant sections of the Left support Hamas...

It's not sometimes that people are falsely accused of being Hamas members - it's constant. And I don't get why you are talking about it happening on both sides when the discussion going on is about the Left and supposed support of Hamas. I mean, I know it happens to lots of people about lots of different things, but there doesn't seem to be any point to make in saying what's obvious anyway...

[LeftishBrit]

53. It's 'constantly' happening that people are accused of being Hamas members?

I don't think so. I think that's only occasional.

What is perhaps 'constant' is accusations of people tolerating certain actions from Hamas that they would not tolerate from Israelis. Whether justified or not, that's very different from calling someone a Hamas member.

[Violet_Crumble]

63. When it comes to being accused of suppportng Hamas, yes it is constant in this forum...

I can go get you links to where DUers are accused of supporting Hamas because it does happen on a regular basis in this forum. Let me know if you want me to go get links to the posts as there's been quite a few since I've started posting here again...

[oberliner]

54. Did you attend any UK Gaza protest rallies?

Two committed UK Leftwing activists (Peter Tatchell and Sunny Hundal) have written articles for the Guardian online sharing some of their observations about these large protest rallies. Both men attended the events because they supported the Palestinian cause and opposed the invasion of Gaza. Each of them noted that expressions of support for Hamas were made during these rallies and were met with positive responses from the crowd. Video footage is available on Youtube and elsewhere of the largest such rally in London in January where prominent British-Palestinian activist Azzam Tamimi enthusiastically shouts "We are all Hamas!" and the audience cheers in response.

[Violet_Crumble]

65. That would be a bit difficult since you know I'm in Australia....

While my daughter's been nagging me to take her to the Blur reunion in Hyde Park later this year, I can't say I entertained the thought of hopping on a plane for nearly 24 hrs to attend a protest rally, especially when all that was needed to attend a rally here was to leave my desk at work, walk for two minutes into Garema Place and go to one that was happening there. There was no expressions of support for Hamas at the rally I went to, btw. I am curious to find out how you know that attendees at the one yr talking about were all from *the Left, as yr argument appears that they were Leftists...

[LeftishBrit]

68. I think there's one thing that needs to be clarified

Tatchell is not saying that more people on than outside the Left are pro-Hamas. He's saying that no one at all on the Left *should* be pro-Hamas as they are very RW, and that some are.

That being said, I would agree that some of the people who attend such rallies are Muslim-Righties or isolationists, rather than real leftists.

[Violet_Crumble]

69. Something I've been thinking about with the Right/Left distinction....

Does it apply to fundamentalist type religious political groups like Hamas for example? While the whole authoritarian nature of their party steers well towards the attitude of the Right, there's also things about them that are more towards the Left, like providing free healthcare and other social services, which is what they were doing for the Palestinians for a long time....

[oberliner]

76. Do you consider Azzam Tamimi to be a Lefitst?

Also, have you seen any video footage of his remarks at the London protest or the remarks of any figures whom you do consider to be Leftist at the same event?

[Violet_Crumble]

78. Did you miss the question I asked you, Oberliner?

Now to answer the questions you asked me: Nope, never heard of him and I can't say I'm all that interested in doing the Good or Bad Leftie test on him...

Nope, haven't seen any video and I'm going through a video-free stage due to the download limit I have right now, so I can honestly say I'm not the slightest bit interested in visiting YouTube unless it's for something really worthwhile like someone I know embarressing themselves and doing something really stupid. It's all about priorities, y'see :P

[oberliner]

80. I do not see where you asked me a question

I mentioned that person and the UK Gaza rally because that is the source of the initial claim that you seem to take issue with.

Look, neither one of us lives in the UK, so the only way we can evaluate this person's claim is by looking at news articles, first-hand accounts, or video footage from the rallies and see if his observations are valid. Also, we can evaluate the credibility of the author himself.

In doing the above, I have found that the author is a committed leftist and that other British leftists have noted the same phenomenon that he observed at the rallies. Furthermore, in watching video footage of the rallies, I can hear statements such as "We are all Hamas" being made by people who were invited to speak at the rally (such as the gentleman I mentioned) and the reaction to those remarks appears to be positive.

The point, I think, is not necessarily to extrapolate from these observations just exactly how many Leftists "support Hamas" or who the "good and bad Lefties" are, but rather to help clarify some information about Hamas for those who appear to be confused or uninformed regarding their record on human rights and progressive values.

[LeftishBrit]

81. No - not in a broad sense

He's against the Iraq war, if that is left-wing. I don't know his views on economic issues, and doubt that these are key issues for him. He is very opposed to secularism and the separation of church/mosque and state, which I would consider a right-wing attitude.

Here is a link to a very interesting article, where he is mentioned, and which supports my view that the 'religious right' and anti-secularists of all religions are pretty similar. (Note to prevent misunderstandings though this should be obvious: I don't think that being religious as such is right-wing or otherwise problematic; my problem is with those who would interpolate religion into the laws of the land. E.g. I support church disestablishment in the UK.)

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1172500524944&pagename=Zone-English-News%2FNWELayout

He supports Hamas, and is against Israel's existence (not just the Occupation) and has said that Israel should have been established in Germany. To be fair, he does oppose the more extreme 'Protocols'-type antisemitism in the Hamas charter.

[oberliner]

82. What about the Stop the War Coalition?

Would you say that they are a Leftist organization?

[LeftishBrit]

83. They are a very mixed organization, headed by but not restricted to left-wingers

I was about to post about them, because they are indeed the biggest organization linked to the antiwar movement in Britain.

The people at the head, such as Tony Benn, are mostly left-wing.

However, it's a *coalition* of organizations that are united on a single issue: not necessarily on anything else. It includes mainstream left organizations, small far-left groups such as the Communist Party of Great Britain, single-issue anti-war groups, and Muslim organizations that oppose this particular war. The two latter types of organization will include left-wingers, plenty of people who are neither right nor left, and some RW isolationists/ Little Englanders (among the single-issue groups) and religious-righties (among the Muslim groups).

There is also a bit too much influence (IMO) from George Galloway, who is left-wing but very flawed in many ways - I have never forgiven him for his support of Musharraf, for example. He does have some links with people who are antisemitic and unpleasant in other ways. I realize that he is well-liked among American progressives for what was indeed a great smackdown of Senator Coleman; but British left-wingers tend to be more ambivalent about him.

Add to all this that of course the leaders of any protest have somewhat limited control over who may come along and bring their own agenda!

So to sum up, the inclusiveness of the Stop the War Coalition has its good and bad sides: obviously it is good to bring large numbers together in a good cause, but it does risk including people who have questionable agendas and are against the war for other than left-wing reasons. Fine, as long as the only agenda being actively pushed is the anti-war one; less fine when people bring in other agendas.

[oberliner]

10. Great article from a great champion of human rights

Thanks for sharing!

Hopefully his writings will help inform those confused progressives who would shout "Victory to Hamas!" or "We are all Hamas now!" to understand the situation more deeply.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. Yeah, but look how he's been sucked in by Amnesty International and PCHR...

Thanks to Shira's strong track record in a) claiming that just about everything these groups put out is based on lies, and b) that they're merely mouthpieces for Hamas propaganda, we can all a) agree with Shira that AI and PCHR lie and get things wrong, or b) take a safe guess that Hamas want people to think they're tough, nasty shits who are to be feared, and because in reality they're a bunch of pussies who cry when they watch their Friday night chick-flicks and know everyone thinks they're wimpy pushovers, they've employed the Hamas Propaganda Division to get them the reputation they can't earn without some propaganda! ;)